Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

In Congress there are only about 10 members considered on the Left. They included Sen Sanders and the House Reps called “The Squad”. Their beliefs include universal healthcare, social justice, the Green New Deal, tuition-free public college, wealth redistribution, regulation on corporations and freedom from excessive regulations on people.

How does that differ from communism?

The exception is "freedom from excessive regulations", which is what all of the other measures you promote require.

As for the left's continued support of murderous misogynists and homophobes, that is simply cognitive dissonance. These great "human rights champions" show ZERO interest in atrocities in Sudan, Yemen and Syria and they cannot see their own profound hypocrisy.

Do you equate universal healthcare with communism? Every other modern country has some form of universal healthcare and every one of them has much better healthcare outcomes and much longer life spans. Our problem is that the vulture insurers are allowed to rip us off.
"The Left's continued support of murderous ...." is odd because there is essentially no one from the Left in the government. Who specifically are you referring to? Biden? If so I might agree but he isn't on the Left. Only the Right considers him on the Left.

No, I don't call universal healthcare communism. Australia has Medicare and it is not a communist country.

Communism is a monolithic state heavily mandating most aspects of society, as per your wish list, which is not just left but far left. People keep thinking communism will be more fair than capitalism but the former always ends up with greater inequality.

Communism - the far left - has a terrible track record, with more deaths than any other system. The far left is in favour of Palestine's murderous and bigoted regime, as evidenced by the protests. Also BLM, defund the police, pro-environment vandalism, and pro-Hamas demonstrations are far left, not the "liberal elite".

Communism is strongly associated with censoring "misinformation".

[Pattern-chaser]

Working people are now deemed racists and bigots by the left because they oppose uncontrolled immigration.

I don't think this is so. Can you provide a real world example where this has actually taken place?

To the best of my knowledge, few if any states, or their politicians, support "uncontrolled immigration". I say this in contrast to the idea that immigration is necessary in many states, because their existing populations are not sufficient in number* for their taxes to pay what the government needs to provide its services. This is the case in the UK, and probably many other countries too.

* — and they're too old (i.e. too close to retirement age).

Working class people are struggling today because left abandoned them.

I think it is the formerly-left-wing parties that have moved away from their left-wing principles, thinking that to get elected, they must look like they're right-wing... It's not that the left have abandoned working people, but rather that those parties that used to espouse left-wing principles and practices have changed. The effect is the same, though.

[Pattern-chaser]

There seems to be some confusion about left-wing political ideologies here. There is, in my opinion, a significant difference between the Communism and Socialism.

Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate. Karl Marx used the terms interchangeably. For many, however, the difference can be seen in the two phases of communism as outlined by Marx. The first is a transitional system in which the working class controls the government and economy yet still pays people according to how long, hard, or well they work. Capitalism and private property exist, though to a limited degree. This phase is widely regarded as socialism. However, in Marx’s fully realized communism, society has no class divisions or government or personal property. The production and distribution of goods is based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

In practice, and in general, Socialism is little more than typical left-wing politics. Whereas Communism is a rather more extreme version, with some rather draconian measures added. IMO, political extremes of all flavours are best avoided. This probably includes Communism. [But not Socialism, IMO.]

[Mo_reese]

No, I don't call universal healthcare communism. Australia has Medicare and it is not a communist country.

Communism is a monolithic state heavily mandating most aspects of society, as per your wish list, which is not just left but far left. People keep thinking communism will be more fair than capitalism but the former always ends up with greater inequality.

Communism - the far left - has a terrible track record, with more deaths than any other system. The far left is in favour of Palestine's murderous and bigoted regime, as evidenced by the protests. Also BLM, defund the police, pro-environment vandalism, and pro-Hamas demonstrations are far left, not the "liberal elite".

Communism is strongly associated with censoring "misinformation".

The US has no communists and no communist party to speak of. The Farthest Left in government are Sen Sanders and about 10 Representatives that have zero power. Essentially the complete US government and their bought and paid for media are all-in on supporting Israel's plans. That doesn't sound like communism.
It wasn't the Left that militarized the local police that make it a point to brutalize peaceful protesters. Asking that a fair share of our taxes go to healthcare in lieu of the gross defense monster isn't communism, nor are public schools, public roads, public libraries.
As far as censoring information, CBS was caught rewording VP Harris's responses to their interview. Also, A.G. Sulzberger chairman and publisher of The New York Times provided a list of words that his journalists could not use. They were all to favor Israel over Palestine. These acts of censorship were not by communists but by corporations owned by the Neo-Liberal Elite. Those proposing more censorship of "misinformation" are major corporations and not communists.

[Sy Borg]

No, I don't call universal healthcare communism. Australia has Medicare and it is not a communist country.

Communism is a monolithic state heavily mandating most aspects of society, as per your wish list, which is not just left but far left. People keep thinking communism will be more fair than capitalism but the former always ends up with greater inequality.

Communism - the far left - has a terrible track record, with more deaths than any other system. The far left is in favour of Palestine's murderous and bigoted regime, as evidenced by the protests. Also BLM, defund the police, pro-environment vandalism, and pro-Hamas demonstrations are far left, not the "liberal elite".

Communism is strongly associated with censoring "misinformation".

The US has no communists and no communist party to speak of. The Farthest Left in government are Sen Sanders and about 10 Representatives that have zero power. Essentially the complete US government and their bought and paid for media are all-in on supporting Israel's plans. That doesn't sound like communism.
It wasn't the Left that militarized the local police that make it a point to brutalize peaceful protesters. Asking that a fair share of our taxes go to healthcare in lieu of the gross defense monster isn't communism, nor are public schools, public roads, public libraries.
As far as censoring information, CBS was caught rewording VP Harris's responses to their interview. Also, A.G. Sulzberger chairman and publisher of The New York Times provided a list of words that his journalists could not use. They were all to favor Israel over Palestine. These acts of censorship were not by communists but by corporations owned by the Neo-Liberal Elite. Those proposing more censorship of "misinformation" are major corporations and not communists.

I was probably not making myself clear. I was talking about communist countries and how they treat "misinformation", such as Russians not being allowed to refer to the Ukraine 'special operation" as a war or invasion. China, of course, is famous for suppression of freedom of speech.

No, thankfully the west has not adopted communism at this stage, though there are some who still advocate for it, despite its failure.

It's true, though, when referring to controls that you follow the money, a trail that leads us to major asset managers like Blackrock and Vanguard. It's astonishing how much influence these companies have. I only even heard of them in the last two years, but they have been quietly pulling strings with nary a word from the mainstream media. Of course, there's always someone pulling the strings of any society. It's got to be someone. That "someone" and the type of "someone" ever shifts over time.

Still, I have always figure that, as populations become very large, there's not much choice but for governments to move towards authoritarianism. Managing humans can be like herding cats.


PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

[Mo_reese]

PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

Really? I am very disappointed that you think you need to get personal. You don't know me.

[Sy Borg]

PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

Really? I am very disappointed that you think you need to get personal. You don't know me.

I am disappointed in you saying that a blatantly impersonal question is personal, which is in itself misinformation. My comment was obviously not personal.

You have been advocating in favour of a hate-filled, misogynist homophobes aka Palestine for months now, and not once mentioned Tibet or Xinjiang, let alone other Middle Eastern hot spots. I don't need to know you to notice that. I only need to be able to read and understand written English.

[Lagayascienza]

The center-right on the political spectrum demonize the "center-left" by calling them "far left" or "loony left" and the center-left demonize the center-right by calling them the "far-right" or the "rabid-right". In Australia, the USA and the UK there is no longer any loony-left to speak of. Where they still exist, communist candidates get virtually zero votes. And the same goes for avowed Nazis on the far-right. Most of the argy-bargy we see in the media is tribalist name-calling between political tribes who cling to parties whose policies are just slightly left or right of center.

And most voters don't even think in terms of left or right but just vote for their political tribe, often regardless of policies. The battle between political tribes is responsible for a lot of the misinformation in the political sphere. Unfortunately, it not just a simple matter of visiting the websites of the political parties and looking at their policies because their policy documents are also full of hyperbole, name-calling, and economic and social assumptions. This makes it really hard for ordinary people to make judgements on what political parties alone say. People need education in politics, economics and sociology to make informed judgements on whether a particular economic or social policy will have the effect that a political party says it will. Few have this education.

Humans have always behaved thus in their quest for power. Word of mouth, and then, for those who could read, pamphlets and newspapers used to be the only information people had. They, too, were full of disinformation put out by those vying for power. With the advent of the internet, there is now so much more disinformation out there and it is so much easier to access. Relying on it is folly. But it is the best many of us can do.

[Sy Borg]

In Australia, the USA and the UK there is no longer any loony-left to speak of. Where they still exist, communist candidates get virtually zero votes. And the same goes for avowed Nazis on the far-right.

You find these on the streets - or in Parliament, shouting at King Charles, an elderly man battling cancer.

People need education in politics, economics and sociology to make informed judgements on whether a particular economic or social policy will have the effect that a political party says it will. Few have this education.

Might be best to access old texts, though. The syllabuses today are slanted to the oppressor/oppressed Marxist paradigm, with ever more omissions of inconvenient information. Whatever is read must be applied to real life, eg. how did 𝑥 country operate after it adopted 𝑦 system?

If anyone spends almost the whole day in reading...he gradually loses the capacity for thinking...This is the case with many learned persons; they have read themselves stupid

[Lagayascienza]

Lidia Thorpe has her views, and whether we agree with her or not, free speech is a very important part of a free society.

Prostate cancer is common in elderly males. A high percentage of those diagnosed with it are still alive 10 years from diagnosis. More die with it than from it. I'm sure King Charles can afford the very best of care. I feel sorry for those who cannot.

Students studying economics at university these days you are unlikely to be studying Marxist economics or even democratic-socialist economics. What students will be reading are those right-wing theories that laud free markets, minimal government intervention or regulation, and low taxes (especially for corporations). That's fine - of course they must read those. But they need to read other economic ideas as well.

All the reading in the world won't help people come to informed conclusions in politics and economics unless they read widely. It's the same with online echo chambers where people don't think but just hear are their own views endlessly repeated.

If people want good information rather than disinformation, it requires some thought and a wee bit of effort on their part.

[Sy Borg]

Lidia Thorpe has her views, and whether we agree with her or not, free speech is a very important part of a free society.

Prostate cancer is common in elderly males. A high percentage of those diagnosed with it are still alive 10 years from diagnosis. More die with it than from it. I'm sure King Charles can afford the very best of care. I feel sorry for those who cannot.

1. If everyone did what Thorpe did, our system would break down (which is what she wants - do you? I don't). Also, she has said the same stuff for years now and she far more of a chance to be widely heard than you and me. If she'd sent a letter to the paper instead of that gratuitous act of self-promotion, that would have been free speech. What she did was simply d*head behaviour.

2. Whether Charles has the best of care or not, he's an old man with cancer and a high workload and he will end up six feet under like everyone else. In context, Thorpe's houso display was completely inappropriate (note that most deaths of Aboriginals came from disease, not aggression). The scene reminded me of Will Smith's slap of Chris Rock, where a ritual with genteel expectations is thrown into chaos by someone in a fit of self-importance.

[Pattern-chaser]

PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

Really? I am very disappointed that you think you need to get personal. You don't know me.

I am disappointed in you saying that a blatantly impersonal question is personal, which is in itself misinformation. My comment was obviously not personal.

This looks a lot like a personal insult to me:

"...you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes"



This is not a great path to walk down. Maybe time to turn off?

[Sy Borg]

PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

Really? I am very disappointed that you think you need to get personal. You don't know me.

I am disappointed in you saying that a blatantly impersonal question is personal, which is in itself misinformation. My comment was obviously not personal.

This looks a lot like a personal insult to me:

"...you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes" 😮

This is not a great path to walk down. Maybe time to turn off? 🙏

Get serious. If someone loves and supports a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, why should it not be said? Since when is stating a simple truth a personal attack?

Maybe time to keep your misguided advice to yourself?

[Mo_reese]

PS. I still find it bizarre how much you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, and since you don't give the slightest stuff about what's happening in Sudan, or what happened in Tibet or to the Uyghurs, this is not about care for those who are oppressed or suffering.

Really? I am very disappointed that you think you need to get personal. You don't know me.

I am disappointed in you saying that a blatantly impersonal question is personal, which is in itself misinformation. My comment was obviously not personal.

This looks a lot like a personal insult to me:

"...you love and support a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes"

This is not a great path to walk down. Maybe time to turn off?

Get serious. If someone loves and supports a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, why should it not be said? Since when is stating a simple truth a personal attack?

Maybe time to keep your misguided advice to yourself?

Again I am truly disappointed. If what you claim is true, which it isn't, it would still be inappropriate.
Believe it or not, I like to have discussions with those that I might not agree with.

[Pattern-chaser]

If someone loves and supports a culture of hate-filled, misogynist homophobes, why should it not be said?

If someone does not oppose a culture*, as opposed to "loves and supports" that culture, why should that not be said in response? Why go to the trouble of describing those who disagree with you in such pejorative terms? My only point is that the insulting and demeaning language is ... unproductive.

* — i.e. they understand why that culture feels as they do. But they don't necessarily agree with the all the actions they take in response to their view(s).